On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “C-series”). The C-series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

The fuselage of the Bombardier C-series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium construction. Structures fabricated from aluminum-lithium may provide different levels of protection from post-crash fuel-fed fire threats than similar aircraft with traditional aluminum structure.

There are no existing regulations that adequately ensure that aluminum-lithium structure offers passengers the same protection from a post-crash fire condition as would a conventional aluminum structure. These special conditions are necessary to ensure that the Bombardier C-series airplanes provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the C-series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR Part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the C-series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the C-series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR Part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR Part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Bombardier C-series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The fuselage will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials instead of conventional aluminum.

The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. The new aluminum-lithium materials must provide the same levels of protection against post-crash fuel-fed fire threats.

The certification basis for the Bombardier C-series airplanes includes meeting the burn through requirements defined in § 25.856(b). The Bombardier C-series airplanes are introducing a new material from what has traditionally been shown to be survivable from a toxic standpoint. Toxicity levels from post-crash fire threats are typically more severe than threats generated from an in-flight fire with regards to the quantity level of toxins produced by off-gases from burning materials. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the material being used does not introduce a new hazard that would reduce the survivability of the passengers during a post-crash situation, or produce levels of toxic fumes that would be lethal or incapacitating, thus preventing evacuation of the aircraft in a crash scenario.

Bombardier Inc. will have to demonstrate that aluminum-lithium material does not produce levels of toxic fumes that will reduce the survivability of the passengers or their ability to evacuate when compared to typically constructed aluminum airplanes.

A way of showing acceptable capability is to conduct a laboratory-scale test to assess the survivability characteristics of this non-traditional fuselage material. If negligible amounts of combustion products are produced in this test, the material can be considered acceptable with respect to post crash survivability. A test method developed by the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center should be used (Ref. DOT/FAA/AR-TN07/15 dated August 2008).

Related regulations, including §§ 25.853 and 25.856(a), remain valid for this airplane, but they do not reflect the potential threat generated from toxic levels of gases produced from aluminum-lithium materials.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-08-SC for the Bombardier C-series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2013 (78 FR 65233). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 (C-series) airplanes.

Fuselage Post-Crash Fire Survivability. The Bombardier C-series airplanes must show that any toxic levels of gases produced from the aluminum-lithium material are in no way an additional threat to the passengers and their ability to evacuate when compared to a typically constructed aluminum airplane exposed to a post-crash fuel-fed fire.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A1 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “C-series”). The C-series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

The Bombardier C-series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials. The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage in an inaccessible in-flight fire scenario is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. The fuselage itself does not contribute to in-flight fire propagation. This may not be the case for an all-aluminum-lithium fuselage. Experience has shown that eliminating the fire propagation of the interior materials and insulation materials tends to increase survivability since other aspects of in-flight fire safety (e.g., toxic gas emission and smoke obscuration) are typically by-products of the propagating fire. The Bombardier C-series airplanes must provide protection against an in-flight fire propagating along the surface of the fuselage.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the C-series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR Part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the C-series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the C-series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR Part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR Part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The Bombardier C-series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The fuselage will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials instead of conventional aluminum. This new type of material must provide protection against an in-flight fire propagating along the surface of the fuselage.

The Bombardier C-series airplanes will be fabricated using aluminum-lithium materials. The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum fuselage in an inaccessible in-flight fire scenario is understood based on service history and extensive intermediate and large-scale fire testing. Experience has shown that eliminating the fire propagation of the interior materials and insulation materials tends to increase survivability since other aspects of in-flight fire safety (e.g., toxic gas emission and smoke obscuration) are typically by-products of the propagating fire. The fuselage itself does not contribute to in-flight fire propagation. This may not be the case for an all-aluminum-lithium fuselage.

In the past, fatal in-flight fires have originated in inaccessible areas of the airplane where thermal/acoustic insulation located adjacent to the aluminum airplane skin has been the path for flame propagation and fire growth. Concern over the fire performance of thermal/acoustic insulation was initially raised by five incidents in the 1990's, which revealed unexpected flame spread along the insulation film that covered the thermal/acoustic insulation. In all cases, the ignition source was relatively modest and, in most cases, was electrical in origin (e.g., electrical short circuit, arcing caused by chafed wiring, ruptured ballast case).

In 1996, the FAA Technical Center began a program to develop new fire test criteria for insulation films directly relating to in-flight fire resistance. The current test standard at that time was evaluated as well as another small-scale test method that has been used by airplane manufacturers to evaluate flame propagation on thermal/acoustic insulation materials.

An inter-laboratory comparison of these methods revealed a number of deficiencies. A new test method subjecting a material to a pilot flame while the material is heated by a radiant panel was developed. The new radiant panel test method and criteria were specifically established to improve the evaluation of the in-flight fire ignition/flame propagation of thermal/acoustic insulation materials based on real-world fire scenarios. While these tests were developed for thermal/acoustic insulation materials, this same type of test methodology can be used to assess the flammability characteristics of the proposed aluminum-lithium material for the fuselage.

The FAA reviewed the test method proposed by Bombardier Inc. and determined that a larger flame and test article would be necessary to make a determination of the potential flammability of the aluminum-lithium material. It would also be more representative of a real-life fire scenario.

The FAA recently conducted additional testing in our Components Fire Test facility and determined that another way to assess the survivability within the cabin of the C-series airplanes is to use the cargo liner flammability test (part III of appendix F to part 25, Test Method to Determine Flame Penetration Resistance of Cargo Compartment Liners ). However, the problem with using this particular test is that when the aluminum panels melt, molten globs of aluminum fall directly into the burner, which adversely affects the flame. So the FAA decided that a similar test for the measurement of insulation burnthrough resistance could be used (part VII of appendix F to part 25, Test Method to Determine the Burnthrough Resistance of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Materials ). Although this test method uses the same burner as the cargo liner test, it uses a slightly larger flame. In addition, the burner is not vertical, so there was no problem with molten material falling into it, requiring disassembly of the burner. The only slight change was the size of the sample and the sample holder. These were modified slightly to accommodate the samples that we received.

The recent FAA tests that were conducted in our Components Fire Test facility used a 6-gallon/hour oil burner, the same apparatus used to determine burnthrough resistance of thermal/acoustic insulation (part VII of appendix F to part 25). The test used 16 by 24-inch Al-Li panels that were installed into a sheet steel subframe, which measured 18 by 32 inches (outside dimensions). The subframe had an opening cut into it, which measured 14.5 by 22.5 inches; this allowed the test panels to be mounted onto the subframe using .250-20 UNC threaded bolts.

The FAA proposes that Bombardier use the test method contained in part VII of appendix F to part 25, Test Method to Determine the Burnthrough Resistance of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Materials, with the slight changes to the sample size and sample holder as an alternate test method to show compliance with applicable requirements. Bombardier Inc. is responsible for finding a suitable testing facility in which to conduct the testing.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-06-SC for the Bombardier C-series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2013 (78 FR 65231). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 (C-series) airplanes.

1. Fuselage In-Flight Fire Safety and Flammability Resistance. Bombardier must demonstrate that the fuselage would not materially contribute to the propagation of an in-flight fire or introduce any additional in-flight fire risk.

2. To demonstrate compliance, the test set-up and methodology must be commensurate with 14 CFR Part 25, appendix F, part VII, except the size of the test samples, modifications to the sample holder, and the test methodology would be varied as described below.

3. In demonstrating that the aluminum-lithium material used to fabricate the fuselage has equal or better flammability resistance characteristics than the aluminum alloy sheet typically used as skin material on similar airplanes, the accepted test methods for compliance include:

a. Each test sample must consist of a flat test specimen. A set of three samples of the material must be tested. The size of each sample must be 16 inches by 24 inches by 0.063 inches.

b. The test samples must be installed into a steel sheet subframe with outside dimensions of 18 inches by 32 inches. The subframe must have an opening cut into it of 14.5 inches by 22.5 inches. The tests samples must be mounted onto the subframe using .250-20 UNC threaded bolts.

c. Test specimens must be conditioned at 70 °F ± 5 °F and 55 percent ± 5 percent humidity for at least 24 hours before testing.

4. Demonstration of compliance will be achieved if the material is not ignited during any of the tests.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46306). The NPRM was prompted by results from fuel system reviews conducted by the airplane manufacturer. The NPRM proposed to require removing bulb-type maintenance lights; installing a drain mast on certain airplanes; and installing muffs on connecting bleed elements on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0033, dated February 19, 2013 (referred to after this the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0632-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Airbus requested that we specify the use of Revision 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 24, 2013, instead of the original issue of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 18, 2012. Airbus stated that since the issuance of the MCAI, it identified an inversion of configurations in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035. Airbus stated that it determined that this inversion had an impact on the NPRM (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013) intent and it agreed with the EASA that the MCAI needs to be superseded to mandate Revision 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, dated September 24, 2013.

We agree with the commenter. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, introduces corrections to part numbers for two insulation sleeves between frames 83 and 84 in configurations 002, 003, and 005. This revision also adds an additional work task for configurations 002, 003, and 005 to replace two insulation sleeves between frame 83 and 84, and changes the insulation sleeves kit allocation for configurations 002, 003, and 005 to allocate the correct kit to every configuration.

Even though Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013, introduces additional work it does not affect United States operators since there are no Model A340 airplanes registered in the United States.

We have changed paragraph (h) of this final rule to reference Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-36-4035, Revision 01, dated September 24, 2013.

Airbus noted that we reference Airbus Service Bulletin A340-33-5007 in Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013). Airbus stated that it is working on the issuance of equivalent service bulletins, and requested that we reference these service bulletins.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The referenced service information is not available. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that actions specified in this final rule must be conducted to ensure continued safety. We might consider additional rulemaking when new service information is made available. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Airbus requested that we remove the credit given for actions accomplished in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, dated September 23, 2011, which is referenced in paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013). Airbus stated that it was on purpose that no credit was provided in the MCAI for this service bulletin.

We agree with the commenter's request. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, Revision 01, dated January 24, 2013, introduces corrections to accomplish certain procedures that are used to comply with the intent of this final rule. We have removed the reference to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-36-3037, dated September 23, 2011, in paragraph (k)(3) of this final rule.

Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we provide authorization to use alternative materials to those listed in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012: and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-36-3040, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2012. DAL stated that it cannot acquire certain materials, and suggested certain alternative materials.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The use of the alternative materials proposed by the commenter to those listed in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-33-3041, Revision 01, dated July 10, 2012; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-36-3040, Revision 01, dated November 26, 2012; is not authorized by the airplane manufacturer. Under the provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, however, we will consider requests for approval of use of other materials as alternative methods of compliance. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 46306, July 31, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 43 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0632; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

On August 20, 2013, at 78 FR 51127, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various restricted category helicopters originally manufactured by Bell, Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P, with a cable assembly, part number 205-001-720-001 installed. The current type certificate holders for these models include but are not limited to Arrow Falcon Exporters Inc.; AST, Inc.; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; International Helicopters, Inc.; JJASPP Engineering Services, LLC; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; OAS Parts LLC; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; San Joaquin Helicopters; Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.; and Southwest Florida Aviation, Inc. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting each cable assembly to determine if an incorrectly machined body is installed. If an incorrectly machined body is installed, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the cable assembly within 50 hours time-in-service. Until the cable assembly is replaced, the NPRM proposed to require inspecting the assembly for separation daily.

The proposed requirements were intended to prevent disengagement of the cable from the body, T/R pitch control failure in a fixed position, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 51127, August 20, 2013).

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. UH-1H-12-08, dated August 28, 2012 (ASB), which describes procedures for inspecting the barrel assembly to determine if an incorrectly machined body is installed. If an incorrectly machined body is installed, the ASB specifies replacing the cable assembly. The ASB further specifies inspecting the barrel assembly and cable connection daily until the cable assembly is replaced.

The ASB specifies inspecting the barrel assembly at the next daily inspection; this AD specifies inspecting within 25 hours TIS. The ASB also specifies replacing any defective cable assembly at the next phase inspection, within 50 hours TIS, or by December 31, 2012; this AD specifies replacing the cable assembly within 50 hours TIS.

We estimate that this AD will affect 716 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the barrel assembly requires about 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $60,860 for the fleet. If required, replacing a defective cable assembly requires about 8 work-hours, and required parts cost about $625, for a cost per helicopter of $1,305.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58967). The NPRM was prompted by reports of defective sealing between the nacelle lower fairing and the underwing box. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time general visual inspection for damaged (worn, torn, or abraded) or missing seals between the nacelle lower fairing and the underwing box of both the left-hand and right-hand engine nacelles, and replacement of the seal and/or shims if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent the decrease of the fire extinguishing agent efficiency, which could delay fire extinction and allow fire propagation out of the nacelle fire protected area, resulting in damage to the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0160, dated August 24, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-39, dated December 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0054.

Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletins:

• A600-0763, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes);

• A601-0627, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes;

• A604-57-006, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes with serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive); and

• A605-57-004, Revision 01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes with serial numbers 5701 through 5920 inclusive).

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because incorrectly installed or fractured fasteners could result in detachment of the flap hinge-box and the flap surface, and consequently, reduced controllability of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring replacement of incorrectly oriented fasteners, which will constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0054; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,925, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 58 work-hours per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. Therefore, the parts costs are not included in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR Part 39 to supersede AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009). AD 2009-26-16 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013 (78 FR 16198). The NPRM was prompted by reports that identified additional locations where inspections and corrective actions of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank are needed. The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting to determine if wires touch the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and marking the location, as necessary; inspecting all wire bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for splices and damage; inspecting for damage to the fuel vapor barrier seal and upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank; and performing corrective actions, as necessary. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require installing nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel. The NPRM also proposed to require inspections of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank at additional locations and corrective actions as necessary. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

FedEx requested that AMOCs previously approved for AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), be approved as AMOCs for the requirements of the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013). FedEx also requested that Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, be revised to incorporate changes made by seven Boeing Information Notices, which were not FAA-approved.

We acknowledge the commenter's request. However, paragraph (k)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013) already states that AMOCs approved for AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD. Also, the changes in all seven Boeing Information Notices were either incorporated or resolved in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 2, dated November 18, 2010, except for Boeing MD11 Service Bulletin Information Notice MD11-28-126 IN 07, December 3, 2012, which was issued for information only, and therefore does not affect the requirements of this final rule. No changes have been made to this final rule in this regard.

FedEx requested that the compliance time for the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013) be extended from “Within 60 months after February 4, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2009-26-16),” for the retained inspection and actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of the NPRM to 72 months, or February 4, 2016, at a minimum. FedEx stated that work would have to be accomplished by February 4, 2015, and due to the labor intensive nature of the work, 18 to 20 months is not enough time to fit into a `C' check time interval.

We do not agree with FedEx's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of installing the required modification within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. The retained inspection and corrective action were previously required by AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), so operators should have already completed or be scheduled to have the work completed. Under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this final rule, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

FedEx requested that the Costs of Compliance be revised since material costs have drastically increased. FedEx stated that Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011, (which we referred to in the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013), as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions) specifies a cost of $18,139 for kit part number SB11280126-11. FedEx stated that a recent quote for this kit is $25,904. Also, the original cost for kit SB11280126-13 was $12,268; it is now $17,568.

We agree with the request to revise the Costs of Compliance because current costs for kits differ greatly from when the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013) was issued. The retained actions from AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31, 2009), had a parts cost of $9,405 to $12,201; the revised parts cost is $15,708 to $28,005. The parts cost for the new action was revised from $2,863 to $6,166. We have revised the information contained in the Costs of Compliance accordingly.

We have revised this AD to revise the Costs of Compliance, which incorrectly specified inspection and installation costs for four Group 6 airplanes as new actions. We have revised the information contained in the Costs of Compliance tables by removing the row containing Group 6 airplanes accordingly.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 16198, March 14, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR Part 39 as follows:

On August 20, 2013, at 78 FR 51115, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and SA330J helicopters. The NPRM proposed visually inspecting the applicable ball joint of the upper and lower end-fittings of the main servo control for crimping. If the ball joint of the upper end-fitting was not crimped and the slipping of the ball joint was one millimeter (mm) or greater, the NPRM proposed replacing the servo-control. If the ball joint of the upper end-fitting was not crimped and the slipping of the ball joint was less than one mm, the NPRM proposed replacing the servo-control or crimping the ball joint. If the ball joint of the lower end-fitting was not crimped, the NPRM proposed crimping the ball joint. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a main servo-control upper end fitting, and subsequent failure of the flight controls and loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0248, dated November 20, 2012, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and SA 330 J helicopters with certain part-numbered main servo-controls installed. EASA advises that several occurrences were reported to Eurocopter of missing crimping on ball joints of servo-control end-fittings. EASA states that while slipping of the ball joint of the lower end-fitting does not affect its service life, slipping of the ball joint of the upper end-fitting can lead to a significant reduction of the service life of this end-fitting. As a result, the EASA AD requires inspecting each ball joint for crimping and, depending on the findings, replacing the main servo-control.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 51115, August 20, 2013).

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for a minor editorial change. The type certificate holder's name for the affected models in this AD changed from Eurocopter France to Airbus Helicopters on January 10, 2014. This editorial change is consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 51115, August 20, 2013) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

Eurocopter issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with three different numbers, all Revision 1, and all dated December 5, 2012. EASB No. 67.00.45 applies to civilian Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332M, AS332M1, and AS332F1 helicopters. EASB No. 67.00.31 applies to military Model AS532AC, AS532AL, AS532SC, AS532UC, AS532UE, AS532UL, AS532A2, and AS532U2 helicopters. EASB No. 67.19 applies to civilian Model SA330J and military Model SA330Ba, SA330Ca, SA330Ea, SA330L, SA330Jm, SA330S1, and SA330Sm helicopters. The EASB specifies visually checking for crimping of the ball joints of the upper- and lower- servo control end-fittings and informing the Eurocopter Technical Support Department of any ball joint that is not crimped. For an upper end-fitting ball joint that is not crimped and slips one mm or greater, the EASB specifies returning the servo-control for replacement of the ball joint and the end-fitting. For an upper end-fitting ball joint that is not crimped and slips less than one mm, the EASB specifies either crimping the ball joint or returning the servo-control for ball joint crimping. For a lower end-fitting ball joint that is not crimped, the EASB states to crimp the ball joint. The EASB also states that if a ball joint is crimped, no action on that ball joint is required in regard to this unsafe condition.

We estimate that this AD affects 18 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate it will take 1 work-hour to inspect the ball joint for crimping at an average labor cost of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, it will cost about $85 per helicopter for the inspection, or $1,530 for U.S. operators. We estimate it will take 4 work-hours to replace a servo-control and parts will cost approximately $60,358 for a total estimated cost of $60,698 for replacement.

According to the Eurocopter service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters, Eurocopter, or UTC Actuation Systems/Goodrich Actuation Systems. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58975). The NPRM was prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain combination of a target/proximity sensor serial number is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a “target FAR” signal cannot be detected when it reaches the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting strut. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts installed on the wings, identifying the part number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity sensor if applicable, and replacing or re-identifying the flap interconnecting strut if applicable. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a latent failure of the flap down drive disconnection due to an already-failed interconnecting strut sensor, which could result in asymmetric flap panel movement and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0012, dated January 23, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 58975, September 25, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58975, September 25, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58975, September 25, 2013).

We estimate that this AD affects 755 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

On August 20, 2013, at 78 FR 51126, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 204B helicopters with a cable assembly, part number 205-001-720-001 installed. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting each cable assembly to determine if an incorrectly machined body is installed. If an incorrectly machined body is installed, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the cable assembly within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS). Until the cable assembly is replaced, the NPRM proposed to require inspecting the assembly for separation daily.

The proposed requirements were intended to prevent disengagement of the cable from the body, T/R pitch control failure in a fixed position, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 51126, August 20, 2013).

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 204B-12-68, dated October 10, 2012 (ASB), which describes procedures for inspecting the barrel assembly to determine if an incorrectly machined body is installed. If an incorrectly machined body is installed, the ASB specifies replacing the cable assembly. The ASB further specifies inspecting the barrel assembly and cable connection daily until the cable assembly is replaced.

The ASB specifies replacing any defective cable assembly within 100 hours TIS or by January 31, 2013; this AD requires replacing the cable assembly within 100 hours TIS.

We estimate that this AD will affect 9 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the barrel assembly requires about 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $765 for the fleet. If required, replacing a defective cable assembly requires about 8 work-hours, and required parts cost about $625, for a cost per helicopter of $1,305.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Tony Clark. Final Rule (Issued February 11, 2014)

1. The Commission issues this Final Rule to revise its delegations of authority to allow for the efficient and timely processing of Notices of Penalty (Notices) issued by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). Specifically, this Final Rule delegates authority to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability to issue orders extending the period of time for consideration of Notices filed by the ERO. This Final Rule removes the same authority currently delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to extend the period of time to consider Notices. This Final Rule also removes the authority delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to direct NERC or applicable Regional Entities to submit information when necessary to process Notices without the need for Commission action.

2. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added section 215 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. 1 Pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(1), the ERO may impose a penalty on a user, owner or operator of the Bulk-Power System for a violation of a Reliability Standard approved by the Commission. Pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(4), the Commission authorized NERC, in its capacity as the ERO, to delegate authority to impose such penalties to eight Regional Entities through Commission-approved Delegation Agreements. Under FPA section 215(e), NERC must file each Notice with the Commission. The penalty is subject to Commission review upon its own motion or upon application by the entity subject to the proposed penalty within 30 days. If no review is sought or initiated, the penalty takes effect by operation of law.

3. In Order No. 728, the Commission determined that, in many cases involving the assessment of zero dollar penalties, Notices could be processed without a Commission vote. 2 Previously, when the Commission received a Notice, it was analyzed within thirty days by staff from the Office of Enforcement, the Office of Electric Reliability, and the Office of General Counsel, who then recommended to the Commission whether the Notice should become effective by operation of law. The Commission would conduct a vote and, if it decided that no further action was warranted, the Commission instructed the Secretary to issue a public notice to that effect. In Order No. 728, the Commission stated that, in proceedings involving non-controversial zero dollar penalties, a Notice could be processed more efficiently by allowing the Secretary, without a formal Commission vote, to issue a notice indicating that the Commission will take no further action.

4. In Order No. 728, the Commission delegated authority to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to direct NERC or applicable Regional Entities to submit further information on a Notice where the Commission did not have sufficient information to reach a decision on the Notice. The Commission also delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement the authority to extend the period of time to consider Notices for the purpose of obtaining additional information from NERC and Regional Entities. Sections 375.311(u) and (v) of the Commission's regulations delegate these authorities to the Director of the Office of Enforcement. Order No. 728 also stated a policy that “Notices will not need a formal Commission vote only in zero dollar penalty cases that do not raise significant concerns or other issues,” and specified various types of issues that would still require a formal Commission vote. 3

5. The Commission believes that its internal processes will be more efficient if the Office of Electric Reliability is the lead office for reviewing and processing Notices. Accordingly, this Final Rule revises the delegations to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability and Director of the Office of Enforcement. Specifically, this Final Rule transfers the authority to extend the period of time to consider Notices for the purpose of obtaining additional information, which is currently delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement in section 375.311(v) of the Commission's regulations, to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability. In addition, this Final Rule removes the related authority delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to require NERC or applicable Regional Entities to provide information necessary to review and process Notices, which is currently delegated in section 375.311(u) of the Commission's regulations. 4

6. New section 375.303(a)(2)(vi) delegates to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability the authority to extend the period of time to review Notices.

7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 5 This Final Rule contains no new or revised information collections. Therefore, OMB review of this Final Rule is not required.

8. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 6 Excluded from this requirement are rules that are procedural, ministerial, or internal administrative and management actions, programs or decisions. 7 This Final Rule falls within this exception; consequently, no environmental consideration is necessary.

9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  8 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Rule concerns a matter of internal agency procedure and it will not have such an impact. An analysis under the RFA is therefore not required.

10. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

11. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document (i.e., the sub docket number, 000) in the docket number field.

12. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at (866) 208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

13. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule concerns internal agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights of non-agency parties.

14. These regulations are effective on February 19, 2014. The Commission finds that notice and public comments are unnecessary because this Final Rule concerns only internal agency procedure and practice. Therefore the Commission finds good cause to waive the notice period otherwise required before the effective date of this Final Rule.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 375, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The preamble to this final rule is organized as follows:

On February 22, 2012, the President signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. Section 2104 of the Act amends Title IX, SSA (42 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ) by adding a new section 911, which requires the Department to issue rules, developed in consultation with an interagency workgroup established by the OMB, that establish data exchange standards for certain functions related to administration of the UI  1 program. Before enactment of this requirement for data exchange standardization, the Department had been a proponent of and strong advocate for the use of open source technologies and data exchange standards in the development of IT systems supporting critical UI functions (such as ICON and SIDES), and of SWAs' overall UI IT modernization efforts. Section 911, SSA, contains two major subsections, (a) and (b), each of which requires data exchange standards; these requirements are discussed in detail below.

Section 911(a)(1), SSA, requires that the Secretary of Labor “shall, by rule, designate a data exchange standard for any category of information required under title III [42 U.S.C. 501 et seq. ], title XII [42 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. ], or this title [IX] [42 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ].” 42 U.S.C. 1111(a)(1) (Emphasis added.) The Department explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published in 78 FR 12655, Feb. 25, 2013, that this statutory language allows the Department to identify any category of information under the specified titles, by rule, for which to establish a data exchange standard. Section 911(b)(1), SSA, requires that the Secretary of Labor “shall, by rule, designate data exchange standards to govern the reporting required under [the same specified titles].” (Emphasis added.) 42 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1). This rule establishes data exchange standards for information required under section 303(a)(1), SSA, that meet the requirements of both sections 911(a)(1) and 911(b)(1), SSA.

Section 303(a)(1), SSA, commonly known as the “methods of administration” requirement, provides that State law, as a condition of the State receiving Unemployment Compensation (UC) administrative grants, must include “such methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.” The Department chose to establish data exchange standards for information required under section 303(a)(1), SSA, because this section is the foundational statutory authority for the Department's guidance to States on the administration of the UI program, including guidance on program operations and reporting requirements.

In the NPRM, the Department indicated that it did not propose establishing data exchange standards for categories of information under Titles IX and XII, SSA, because they provided fewer opportunities for establishment of data exchange standards that would benefit the UI system broadly, given that their focus is primarily on Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) management issues. Title IX establishes the account structure for the UTF, and Title XII establishes the processes for States to obtain advances if their States' accounts in the UTF are depleted. As discussed in more detail in the Comment Section below in response to the comment received on the NPRM, the Department will continue to review all UI reporting and determine the application of appropriate data exchange standards, where feasible. In this rule, the Department addresses the data exchange systems that are most immediately well-positioned to facilitate implementation of the data exchange standard.

To meet the requirements of section 911, SSA, the Department is designating in this final rule that eXtensible Markup Language (XML)  2 be the data exchange standard for two systems that support the reporting of data and information for two core UI administrative functions: (1) employer reporting of information requested by SWAs to support eligibility determinations (SIDES); and (2) the reporting and exchange of wage information among the States that also supports determination of eligibility for benefits (ICON). XML is a markup language that defines a set of rules for encoding documents in a format designed to structure, store and transport data. XML data are stored in plain text format that is both human-readable and machine-readable. Use of XML also provides for a software- and hardware-independent method of exchanging data over incompatible applications or systems over the Internet.

Section 911(a)(2), SSA, requires that the data exchange standard implemented in this rulemaking “to the extent practicable, be nonproprietary and interoperable.” Section 911(b)(2), SSA, also requires that the data exchange standards implemented in this rulemaking “to the extent practicable incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, computer-readable format,” and “be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary.” Section 911(b)(3), SSA, specifically requires that this rule, “to the extent practicable, incorporate existing nonproprietary standards, such as the eXtensible Markup Language.” The data exchange standards established in these regulations mandate the use of XML to meet the requirements of sections 911(a) and (b), SSA.

XML  3 provides an interoperable standard framework using common computer languages and standard formats and protocols to manage certain functions or communications. Gaining interoperability among the Department and 53 States and territories with different IT infrastructure and different program parameters (State UI programs have differing eligibility requirements and processes for supporting those requirements) is challenging. Therefore, the Department focused these regulations on core functions and reporting requirements that are truly common among the States.

Finally, section 911(a)(3)(A), SSA, requires that for data exchange reporting standards, the rule, to the extent practicable, incorporate interoperable standards developed and maintained by an international voluntary consensus standards body. The XML standard herein designated meets this requirement as it is recognized by the World Wide Web Consortium, an international voluntary consensus standards body. The rule also meets the requirement of incorporating standards developed and maintained by intergovernmental partnerships like the National Informational Exchange Model (NIEM) referenced in section 911(a)(3)(B), SSA. XML is a data exchange standard recognized by NIEM. The standard to be considered under Section 911(a)(3)(C), SSA, requires incorporation, to the extent practicable, of “interoperable standards developed and maintained by Federal entities with authority over contracting and financial assistance, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulations Council.” This requirement applies to contracting and procurement processes and is not applicable to UI processes.

In accordance with these provisions, this final rule implements the following data exchange standards:

• Under section 911(a), SSA, the Department designates XML as the data exchange standard for the real-time applications  4 of ICON;

• Under section 911(a), SSA, the Department designates XML as the standard for the SIDES data exchange modules;

• Under section 911(b), SSA, the Department designates XML as the data exchange standard to govern reporting of information shared through SIDES; and

• Under section 911(a), SSA, the Department designates XML as the data exchange standard for real-time applications of ICON and SIDES data exchange modules in association with major IT modernization projects using Federal funds.

By publishing this final rule, the Department does not foreclose the possibility of later establishing additional data exchange standards by regulation, as technological and other advances make it feasible and appropriate. The Department will explore on an ongoing basis other functions where data exchange standards would be valuable to the UI program and as it relates to shared data exchange with other Federal agencies.

ICON is used to implement sections 3304(a)(9)(A) and (B) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), providing for interstate and combined-wage claims. 5 ICON enables States to request, submit, and receive much of the information necessary to establish claims (as identified below) and determine eligibility. The requirement to pay UC “when due” under section 303(a)(1), SSA, includes the timeliness of these payments. Interstate and combined wage claims are more complex to administer since they require communication and transmission of information between States or between a State and a Federal agency. To ensure that these claims are paid “when due,” the Department supports development and maintenance of ICON. ICON is a secure multi-purpose telecommunications network that supports the transfer of data among the SWAs needed for critical program functions, including:

• Interstate Benefits/Combined-Wage Claims;

• Unemployment Compensation for Federal Civilian Employees and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers programs;

• The Wage Record Interchange System, which allows SWAs to obtain wage data for program performance purposes of individuals who have participated in workforce investment programs in SWAs;

• The UI Inquiry data exchange with the Social Security Administration (Social Security) that enables SWAs to validate Social Security Numbers (SSNs) with Social Security; and

• The Health Coverage Tax Credit that enables a SWA to transmit information to the Internal Revenue Service about individuals eligible for help paying for their health insurance coverage.

The Department establishes in this final rule that XML be used as the data exchange standard under section 911(a), SSA, for a subset of these functions due to both State and ICON capacity to adopt standards for some of these functions at this time. In relation to these chosen functions, ICON currently supports the following applications in real-time allowing for States to use XML standards for these functions. These are applications currently used by some SWAs to support the processing of all UC claims:

• Interstate Wages and Benefits Inquiries/Responses, which supports online transmission of interstate wages and benefits inquiries and responses between SWAs;

• Withdrawn/Invalid Claims, which allows for the posting and viewing of withdrawn or invalid claim information for SWAs; and

• State Identification Inquiry, which allows SWAs to inquire about wages reported to other SWAs by SSN.

Currently, seven SWAs are involved in modernizing some of their ICON applications and it is not practical to require all States to comply with this standard immediately. In this final rule, the Department requires that all SWAs using real-time ICON applications comply with the XML data exchange standard no later than September 30, 2018. A SWA may request an extension of the September 2018 deadline if it demonstrates that resources are not available to meet this requirement. These requests must be submitted in writing to the Administrator of the Office of Unemployment Insurance no later than 6 months before the deadline; requests will be reviewed and decided within 30 days.

SIDES is necessary to effectuate the Standard for Claim Determinations—Separation Information, codified in regulation at 20 CFR Part 625 Appendix B. This standard is based significantly on the “methods of administration” requirement in section 303(a)(1), SSA, and includes a requirement that a State promptly obtain information from the worker, employer, or other source that is sufficient to reasonably insure payment of UC when due. For this reason, the Department supports development and maintenance of SIDES, which enables States to exchange information with employers electronically, thereby markedly improving the timeliness and accuracy of the employer-provided information about the reasons individuals separated from employment.

SIDES is an automated information exchange and reporting system to standardize SWAs' delivery of information to employers and collection of information by SWAs from employers and third-party administrators (TPAs). In FY 2010, the first format of SIDES for exchange of employee separation information was implemented. This exchange of information with employers or their TPAs on the circumstances underlying individual UC claimants' job separations will reduce UC payments to ineligible claimants, yield administrative cost savings to both employers and taxpayers, and promote more timely benefit determinations. Currently, 36 SWAs and three TPAs are participating in the SIDES effort. In FY 2011, the SIDES earnings verification module was implemented. The addition of the earnings verification exchange allows SWAs and employers to more quickly and accurately verify when UC claimants return to work, thus reducing the leading cause of UC overpayments: claimants' receipt of UC while employed. In FY 2013, the SIDES module providing information on monetary and potential charges to the employer's account was implemented. This module allows SWAs to inform employers more quickly of potential charges to their accounts so that employers can appeal these charges expeditiously. If an employer appeals the charges, additional fact-finding of the claim can be conducted before additional benefits are paid to claimant thus preventing improper payments.

SIDES is managed by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA  6 ) which contracts with a vendor for its maintenance, support, and operations. The Department has provided specific funding to State consortia and SWAs for development, maintenance, and operation of SIDES. State consortia are groups of States collaborating to jointly establish a project team to oversee the design, development and implementation of an IT solution that will be shared across the States. The Department recently funded a consortium of States to oversee the development of new SIDES data exchange modules to allow SWAs to notify employers and TPAs of benefits charges to their accounts and of non-monetary determinations. SWAs, participating in the SIDES consortia, identify and help prioritize new SIDES modules to be developed and direct these funds to NASWA for the development of these modules. All SWAs using SIDES modules provide administrative funding to NASWA for the continued operations of SIDES.

The Department continues to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of the functionality and use of SIDES as a vital tool for SWAs for the prevention and detection of improper payments, and has provided supplemental funding to a State consortium for the development of additional data exchange modules. These modules include:

• UC Benefit Charge Notices. This enhancement will make it possible for SWAs to provide employers notice of actual (as opposed to potential as discussed above) benefit charges to their accounts electronically rather than by paper and mail. This permits a quicker delivery and review by the employer and the ability to reply electronically if the charges are questionable. This expedited information exchange can detect potential improper payments earlier, particularly those related to identity theft and employees that return to work and continue to collect benefits.

• Non-Monetary Determinations Exchange. This enhancement will notify employers electronically, rather than on paper, of SWA decisions on the eligibility of their former employees when issues arise about whether the employees quit or were terminated for cause. This will improve the timeliness of employer appeals and allow for quicker appeal decisions, halting improper payments faster if the employer prevails in the appeal.

Additionally, several other data exchange modules are under consideration for the expansion of SIDES including one for the exchange of Appeals Decisions. The XML standard will apply to these additional data exchange modules as well.

The final rule designates a data exchange standard under section 911(a), SSA, to apply to the SIDES data exchange modules and designates a standard under section 911(b), SSA, to govern reporting of information through SIDES data exchange modules.

For the purpose of this regulation, a major IT Modernization of UI Benefits and Tax systems includes conversion, re-engineering, rewriting, or transferring of an existing system to a modernized framework such as transferring a process from mainframe operations to web-based operations, converting to modern computer programming languages, or upgrading software libraries, protocols, or hardware platform and infrastructure. As the Department provides funding to States to modernize their IT systems, the opportunity exists to use new data exchange standards that improve operations of the UI system as a whole and may further enable improved data exchanges with other States and Federal agencies.

The Department facilitates SWAs' efforts to modernize IT systems supporting their UI programs by providing funding for administration and operations, and appropriate technical assistance. While the Federal-State structure of the UI program places primary responsibility for its administration on the States, the Department provides periodic supplemental funding opportunities for IT modernization activities. In addition, Congress periodically provides special distributions of administrative UI funding to States.

Federal funds for UI modernization efforts come primarily from three sources: (1) supplemental budget funds that are designated by the Department for State IT modernization efforts, (2) State UI administration funding, and (3) special distributions. State administration funding primarily consists of State UI operations funds (an administrative grant awarded by the Department at the beginning of each fiscal year). Recent special distributions to States, under section 903, SSA, include those provided under the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 funds (distributed under the Reed Act, a mechanism by which the Federal government transfers surplus UI funds to States) and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds (an economic stimulus package enacted in February 2009). Also, since 2009, the Department has provided supplemental funding to State consortia to develop jointly functional requirements and development of modernized UI IT Benefits and/or Tax systems. One of the requirements was that the technology tools developed use open source components to the extent feasible, be transferable, and be capable of being shared by multiple SWAs. The goal is for multiple SWAs to share common systems/tools that accommodate each SWA's specific needs. Each of the consortia has its State leadership engaged in the process and soliciting vendors to assist with the system design and development efforts.

This final rule requires that SWAs, when using Federal funds to modernize their UI systems, use XML as a data exchange standard when developing the functionality to interface with ICON, to implement SIDES and the reporting of information through SIDES. This requirement will potentially further accelerate State adoption of this standard for both functions. The Department strongly encourages SWAs, to the extent feasible, to begin conforming to the XML standard for any major UI IT modernization projects already underway.

Section 2104(b)(1) of the Act requires that a final rule to be issued “after public comment, within 24 months after such date of enactment.” Section 2104(b)(2) of the Act requires that a proposed rule under section 911(b), SSA, will “become effective with respect to reports required in the first reporting period, after the effective date of the final rule referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection.”

Accordingly, this final rule requires that the data exchange standard for SIDES, under both sections 911(a) and (b), SSA, become effective 30 days after publication of this final rule. States implementing new data exchange modules after that date will use XML as the data exchange standard.

Additionally, this final rule establishes September 30, 2018, as the date by which SWAs must comply with the data exchange standard for ICON, in accordance with section 911(a), SSA. This will allow States to begin implementing the standard as soon as practicable, while still providing enough advance time to account for the current technology capacity of States and the fact that many States will need to make substantial changes to their technology systems to implement XML for their ICON exchanges.

Finally, the effective date of designation of XML as the data exchange standard for SIDES data exchange modules and for the real-time ICON applications, in accordance section 911(a), SSA, is 30 days after publication of this final rule.

The Department received only one comment in response to the NPRM, which was from the Chairman and six Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. This comment generally supported the rulemaking; however, it also detailed two particular concerns about the NPRM. First, the comment encouraged the Department to continue to review program data beyond the specific data exchanges identified in this rule for standardization including data exchanges under Titles IX and XII. Second, the comment specifically indicated that the Department should explore the standardization of weekly UI claims data. Finally, the comment recognized the Department's commitment to working with other Federal agencies to identify standards that could improve interagency data exchanges. The Department addresses these concerns in the following paragraphs.

First, the commenters state that “as authors of this provision [the Act], we intended `any' to cover all categories of information.” In other words, the commenters asserted the Department should interpret data exchange standardization to cover all categories of information. The comment states “we recognize that the effort to move a standardized system will require upfront investment of time and effort.” The comment also noted that “[t]his is an iterative process and we look forward to working together to achieve success.”

The Department appreciates that the commenters recognize that extending data exchange standardization to all types of reporting and information data exchanges is an enormous effort that takes time; it is an iterative and evolutionary process. The Department recognizes that the statutory language regarding “any” category of information could be interpreted as the commenters assert. The language is ambiguous and therefore the Department interpreted it in a manner to make the implementation of the statute feasible. The Department will continue to review all UI reporting and determine the application of appropriate data exchange standards, where feasible. In the UI program, this process must be accompanied by considerable consultation and partnership from the States. As we noted in the NPRM, 78 FR 12656, Feb. 25, 2013, States vary widely in their IT infrastructure, with many States continuing to operate antiquated and inflexible systems. In addition, the IT infrastructure in States has been significantly challenged over the past several years due to the complexity of new Federal UI programs such as the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, and more recently as a result of sequestration. The fact of this varying State IT capacity requires consideration of priorities, funding availability, and timing constraints when it comes to data exchange standardization.

The Department addresses, in this rule the data exchanges that are most immediately well-positioned to facilitate implementation of new data exchange standardization. For example, the ICON network has completed the implementation of the XML data exchange for the “real time” applications that are used by SWAs. The Department wants to encourage SWAs to transition to the XML data exchange standards for these “real time” applications and these regulations provide such an opportunity. In addition, the SIDES data exchange tool is a recent development and SWAs are in the process of adopting this tool to facilitate the exchange of information between SWAs and employers and third party administrators. Although the designation of a XML standard has started with these specific data exchanges, the Department will continue to review other data exchanges, and reporting requirements for designation of data exchange standards, where feasible. In a May 10, 2013, meeting between the Department and staff members of the House Subcommittee on Human Resources, the committee staff indicated that they were not requesting any specific change to the rule based on this explanation. They asked, and the Department agreed, that it would continue to keep the Committee informed of new opportunities to develop data exchange standards between SWAs and the Department and also between the Department and other Federal agencies.

The comment also noted that the exchanges that deal with the issue of Unemployment Trust Fund reporting under Titles IX and XII could also benefit from data exchange standardization. Most of the data systems on Unemployment Trust Fund reporting are operated by the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury). The Department will work with Treasury to explore opportunities for standardizing these data exchanges and reporting under Titles IX and XII.

While developing this rule for data exchange standards, the Department determined that it is neither feasible nor practicable to immediately set standards for all reports under the three titles listed in Section 911(b), SSA. In the NPRM, the Department indicated that imposing data exchange standards for certain reporting for the UI program would be counter-productive and would interfere with the Department's ability to use and analyze the data. For example, State UI agencies currently send data, such as weekly UI claims data, to the Department in a format that enables the Department to store the data in a relational database for purposes of analysis and performance management. The Department noted that if the data were instead required to be received in XML format, pre-processing of the data would be required to store this information within a relational database, thus adding a layer of complexity for the analytical software. That approach would result in unnecessary inefficiency and there would be no benefit to any user of the data.

The comment further stated that while the commenters agreed with the Department's effort to “avoid unnecessary inefficiencies,” they do not agree with the Department's “assertion that there would be no long term benefit gained from including weekly UI claims data in the data exchange standardization effort.”

The Department acknowledges that presenting the data with consistent identification codes and formatting is desirable. The Department plans to conduct a feasibility study on consolidating the State UI reporting infrastructure within the Department's National Office. This process will provide opportunities for updating the format and standards by which these reports are presented to users of the data. With this pending consolidation project, the Department will continue to explore how best to present the data to facilitate greater usability, transferability and transparency. As an interim measure, the Department, where feasible, intends to prioritize the translation and publication of data, including weekly claims data, in an XML format to enable users to better understand the data elements and definitions. These are actions that the Department can take without any further rule making because it does not need involvement by external entities.

Finally, the comment supported the Department's commitment to interagency coordination “to identify standards that could be applied to improve interagency data exchanges and issue additional regulations.”

The comment also stated that “[the Subcommittee] look[s] forward to working together to achieve success” in this respect. The Department appreciates the interest shown by the Committee and intends to continue to work closely with all stakeholders, including the Committee and all Members of Congress, as well as the States, OMB, and other Federal agencies in pursuing opportunities for data exchange standardization. The Department agrees with the Committee on the potential benefits for data exchange standardization.

The Department also notes that if the goal for the UI program and other Federal programs is to advance data exchange standardization as quickly as feasible, it is critical that agencies have flexibility to determine the data exchanges that will produce the best results and the timing for implementation based on issues such as capacity and cost. In addition, the Department also notes that requiring agencies to implement data exchange standards through regulations is extremely cumbersome and may actually inhibit agencies' agility to respond to advances in technology concerning standardization. The Department is willing to work with the Committee to identify alternatives to accelerate data exchange standardization in other areas.

Based on the conversation with Committee staff on May 10, 2013, the Department is making no changes to the regulation as a result of this comment.

This section establishes definitions of terms used in this rule. Most are self-explanatory; however, of particular note is paragraph (c), which defines XML, the standard designated in this rule to use for data exchange. XML data are stored in plain text format that is both human-readable and machine-readable and provides for a software- and hardware-independent method of exchanging data over incompatible applications or systems over the internet. This definition includes any future upgrades, iterations, or releases of XML-based language. A definition for the NASWA was included in the NPRM as part of the proposed rule. Since this term is not included in this regulation, the proposed definition has been deleted in this final rule. This deletion of the definition of NASWA is the only change made to the final rule when compared to the proposed rule in the NPRM.

Paragraph (a) designates XML as the data exchange standard for the real-time ICON applications. These applications are: Interstate Wages and Benefits Inquiries/Responses; Withdrawn/Invalid Claims; and State Identification Inquiry. These applications, used by States, are currently supported by ICON in real-time using two data exchange formats—Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code (EBCDIC) and Web Services Description Language (WSDL), which is a XML-based language. As stated previously, the Department has selected this sub-set of the applications supported on ICON for applying a data exchange standard because they represent the applications which both ICON and States currently have capacity to implement. The Department will continue to consider ways to apply data exchange standards to the other ICON functions, but the technology solutions are currently not available. It may be over five years before these new technology solutions can be effectively applied in the ICON environment.

Paragraph (b) requires that all SWAs using real-time ICON applications conform to the XML data exchange standard no later than September 30, 2018. The rule provides that a SWA may request an extension of this deadline if it demonstrates that resources are not available to meet the requirements. The request must be submitted to the Administrator of the Office of Unemployment Insurance no later than 6 months before the deadline, and the request will be approved or denied within 30 days.

ICON is funded by a cooperative agreement between the Department and the State of Maryland. The Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation acts as the Department's agent to contract with a vendor for the maintenance, support, and operation of ICON. Beginning in FY 2007, the Department facilitated and later provided funding for the conversion of data exchange formats from EBCDIC to WSDL. EBCDIC is a format specifically used for mainframes and is not an interoperable standard. However, the migration of SWAs from EBCDIC to WSDL is still in its infancy requiring ICON to support a dual environment (Web Services and Mainframe).

A few SWAs currently are in the process of implementing some of the modernized, XML-based real-time applications in conjunction with their efforts to modernize their IT systems or replace outdated systems. The goal of this paragraph is to accelerate State adoption of XML-based real time applications in order to eventually eliminate the need for ICON to manage mainframe applications in addition to the XML-based applications.

The Department will continue to support SWAs' transition to modernized XML-based real-time ICON applications and expects that the data exchange standard in this regulation will accelerate SWAs' adoption of the XML exchange standard. The development of a single environment will result in improved efficiencies and cost savings and allow the Department to more effectively manage the development of future data exchanges and maintenance of resources.

Paragraph (a) designates XML as the data exchange standard for SIDES. Paragraph (b) requires that this standard apply to any Federally-funded SIDES consortium, and any future agents of the Department providing vendor services for the development, maintenance, support and operations of the SIDES. Paragraph (c) designates XML as the data exchange standard to govern the reporting of information through the SIDES data exchange modules. Paragraph (d) denotes when the standard set in paragraph (c) becomes effective.

SIDES uses Web services and the XML data format for the information exchange between the SWAs and employers. The Department is requiring that all SIDES exchanges (current and future), which are developed in whole or part with Department funds, continue to conform to the XML data exchange standard. Additionally, as States, employers, and TPAs chose to implement SIDES or new data exchange modules of SIDES, they must conform to this data exchange standard by application design.

SIDES offers two options for implementation for SWAs and employers: SIDES web services, and SIDES E-Response. Both systems are designed to meet the unique needs of businesses, large and small. For employers with a limited number of UC claims, the SIDES E-Response Web site provides an easy and efficient way to respond to information requests from SWAs. For employers and TPAs that handle a large volume of UC claims information requests, SIDES web services provides an automated, computer-to-computer interface between employers' and TPAs' IT systems and SWA networks.

Paragraph (a) designates XML as the data exchange standard for the real-time ICON applications and SIDES data exchange modules associated with major IT modernization projects to upgrade UI Benefits and Tax Systems by SWAs using Federal funds. This standard will improve the interoperability of State, Federal, and employer systems that collect and exchange information for UI administrative purposes. Linking data between these systems at the State level will allow for better service delivery and faster eligibility determinations, and should facilitate program integrity efforts.

Paragraph (b) requires that, beginning on the effective date of this regulation, major IT modernization efforts funded by the Department must conform to the XML data exchange standard for the implementation of the real-time ICON applications and the SIDES exchange modules.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” because, although not economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it raises novel issues of law and policy. The key policy being implemented in this rule is the designation of XML as the data exchange standard for three categories of information: real-time applications on ICON; SIDES; and implementation of the XML standard identified for ICON and SIDES in major IT modernization projects to upgrade UI Benefits and Tax systems by SWAs using Federal funds. Therefore, the Department has submitted this final rule to OMB for review.

The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., include minimizing the paperwork burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA, and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).

While this final rule imposes no new information collections, §§ 619.2-619.4 would impose formatting requirements for the data exchanges of various UI applications that may impose a burden under the PRA. The Department submitted an information collection request (ICR) to the OMB to obtain PRA approval for the information collection formatting requirements contained in the NPRM. On May 16, 2013, consistent with regulations 5 CFR 1320.11(c), the OMB issued a Notice of Action assigning control number 1205-0510 to the ICR. The OMB did not pre-approve the formatting requirements at that time; instead, the Department was to resubmit the ICR for approval at the final rule stage, after reviewing and responding to any public comments. The substance of the public comment and the Departmental response appears earlier in this preamble. The public comment did not address the PRA burden estimates in the NPRM. Concurrent with publication of this final rule, the Department is resubmitting the request to the OMB for PRA approval. ETA will publish a Notice in the Federal Register to announce any final OMB decision on that request.

The burden for the information collection provisions of this final rule can be summarized as follows:

Agency: DOL-ETA.

Title of Collection: Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program Data Exchange Standardization.

OMB ICR Reference Number Control Number: 1205-0510.

Affected Public: State Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 53.

Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 6,360.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $1,057,329.

Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with State entities when a regulation or policy may have a substantial direct effect on the States or the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, within the meaning of the Executive Order.

Section 3(b) of the Executive Order further provides that Federal agencies must implement regulations that have a substantial direct effect only if statutory authority permits the regulation and it is of national significance. This final rule is specifically required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the current nature of the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government, within the meaning of the Executive Order. The Department is exercising its existing authority to interpret Federal statutes with regard to States' administration of UI programs. In the Federal-State UI system, States have a great deal of flexibility to design their UC laws and operations as long as they comply with the broad Federal requirements in FUTA and the SSA. This rule implements a new statutory requirement for a uniform data exchange and reporting standard and thus is no different from other UC regulations that interpret Federal law as it applies to State requirements. It simply sets a new standard for data exchanges of information used in the administration of the UI program under Title III of the SSA. The Department consulted with NASWA's Information Technology Support Center and NASWA's UI Committee to discuss the impacts of this rule and identify State application interfaces which will benefit by the implementation of the XML data exchange standard. NASWA agreed with the Department's approach to implement uniform data exchange standards in areas already identified as valuable to the UI system and for applications developed collaboratively with the States.

This regulatory action has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Under the Act, a Federal agency must determine whether a regulation proposes a Federal mandate that would result in the increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any single year. The Department has determined this rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate of more than $100 million, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million. Most if not all of the costs of implementing this regulation will be covered by Federal funding.

The Department drafted this final rule in plain language.

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 12 Stat. 2681) for its effect on family well-being. This provision will not adversely affect the well-being of the nation's families. Therefore, the Department certifies that this rule does not adversely impact family well-being as discussed under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.

The Department has notified the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, and made the certification according to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the RFA, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required where the rule “will not . . . have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). A small entity is defined as a small business, small not-for-profit organization, or small governmental jurisdiction. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5).

This final rule requires implementation of a data exchange standard that would be used in SIDES and ICON. ICON is used only by States and Federal entities, neither of which qualifies as a small entity under the RFA. SIDES, however, is used by States and by employers, including TPAs, in the private sector. However, because SIDES already uses an XML-based interface, there is no incremental cost to current users. Furthermore, while additional employers and TPAs may adopt SIDES in the future, this rule does not require them to do so, nor does this rule affect their costs if they did. Consequently, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required under the RFA.

In addition, this rule does not require review by the Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 because it will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

As discussed above, the most significant effect of this final rule will be to accelerate action ( e.g., the adoption of the real-time XML-based ICON applications) that the Department expects to occur even in the absence of this rule. The noteworthy cost of the final rule is the cost of this acceleration. That is, the rule would change the timing—and therefore the present value—of nominal costs that would have been incurred even in the absence of the rule. These costs will be borne by the State and Federal governments, not by small entities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department amends 20 CFR chapter V to add part 619 as set forth below:

In FR Doc. 2014-02148, appearing on page 7934 in the Federal Register of February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7934), the following corrections are made:

1. On page 7934, “FDA-1995-N-0036” is corrected to read “FDA-1995-N-0063” each time it appears.

2. On page 8055, in the second column, “FDA-1995-N-0036” is corrected to read “FDA-1995-N-0063”.

3. On page 8058, in the third column, “FDA-1995-N-0036” is corrected to read “FDA-1995-N-0063”.

FDA is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on Friday, March 9, 1979 (44 FR 13239). The final rule established administrative detention procedures for devices intended for human use believed to be adulterated or misbranded. The document was published with a citation to section 201(y) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(y)) (the FD&C Act) in the first column on page 13240 (§ 800.55(g)(1) (21 CFR 800.55(g)(1)) that subsequently was changed to section 201(x) of the FD&C Act by section 3(b) of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act Amendments of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-80). In addition, the document was published with one typographical error in the first column on page 13241 (§ 800.55(k)(1)) in which the word “is” should have been the word “in”. This document updates the statutory reference in § 800.55(g)(1) and corrects the typographical error in § 800.55(k)(1).

Publication of this rule constitutes final action under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). This amendment to the regulations provides only a technical change and corrects a nonsubstantive error. FDA therefore, for good cause, finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that notice and public comment are unnecessary, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that the rule can become effective upon publication.

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(i) that this final rule is of a type that, as a class, does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in § 800.55 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0114, which expires April 30, 2016.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR Part 800 is amended as follows:

Section 806.1(a) (21 CFR 806.1(a)) refers to a subsection of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that was redesignated as a result of FDAAA (Pub. L. 110-85). FDA is amending § 806.1(a) to update the obsolete reference.

FDA is publishing the document as a final rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq. ). FDA has determined that good cause exists to dispense with prior notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 21 CFR 10.40(e)(1) since such notice and comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulation provides only a technical change to update an obsolete citation. In addition, FDA finds good cause to provide for this regulation to be effective immediately upon publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(i) that this final rule is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 806 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0359, which expires May 31, 2014.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 806 is amended as follows:

The NEH along with the NEA, the IMLS, and the FCAH make up the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities (Foundation). The Foundation was established by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq. The NEH along with the NEA and the former Institute of Museum Services (now, the IMLS) last issued joint FOIA regulations, 45 CFR part 1100, on December 21, 1987. Each agency has decided to issue its own separate FOIA regulations. The NEH's regulations incorporate changes brought by the amendments to the FOIA under the OPEN Government Act of 2007, Public Law 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524. These regulations also include changes to the NEH's fee schedule for processing FOIA requests, provide procedures under which the agency will process requests for the NEH Office of the Inspector General records, and reflect developments in FOIA case law.

These regulations were published for public comment in the Federal Register on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 9654), the comment period ended on April 12, 2013, and three commenters provided input. The NEH carefully considered these comments and has made some changes to the final rule in response. The comments and NEH's responses are discussed below.

The first commenter was a federal agency and it offered suggestions to clarify the rule. First, the commenter suggested adding language clarifying the intersection between FOIA and the Privacy Act. We agree and in response have added language into section 1171.2.

The commenter applauded the NEH for incorporating a foreseeable harm standard in its policy and for stating it will make discretionary disclosures of records and information. The commenter was also pleased to see a listing of the types of information available on the agency's Web site as well as our definition of “submitter in section 1171.9.

In response to section 1171.5, addressing requests for records, the commenter suggested changing “must” to “should” in subpart (a)(4). We agree and have updated this section.

In section 1171.6, the commenter suggested that referrals include information on the portion of the request referred and the receiving agency's FOIA contact information. We agree and have added this language into subsection (d).

In section 1171.7, the commenter suggested that NEH's acknowledgement letters provide requesters with an individualized tracking number and a brief description of the request if it takes NEH longer than twenty working days to respond. After considering the suggestion, we have decided to retain the proposed language. We believe section 1171.8(a) adequately addresses the commenter's concern (to assign a tracking number to requests taking twenty days), because it already requires NEH to provide an individual tracking number for requests that will take longer than ten days. With respect to the suggestion to include a brief description, NEH acknowledgement letters typically provide requesters with a verbatim description of the requested records and the contact information for the FOIA office. Thus, a requester can always contact the FOIA office if he/she needs further clarification.

In section 1171.8, the commenter suggested that when marking on released documents, NEH indicate the precise amount of information deleted, if technically feasible. After considering the suggestion, NEH has decided to retain the proposed language. As a matter of practice, NEH routinely indicates the amount of information redacted, if doing so is feasible and does not create an undue burden on FOIA staff and the efficiency of the agency's FOIA program.

The commenter also had comments on section 1171.10, concerning administrative appeals. The commenter's first suggestion was to change “must” to “should” in section 1171.10(a), particularly in light of section 1171.8(a) which does not require NEH to assign tracking numbers to all requests. In order to clarify this section we have modified section 117.10(a) in part. The commenter also suggested the rule provide information on the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services. We agree and have updated section 1171.10(b).

The commenter provided various comments on section 1171.11, addressing fees. First the commenter suggested that NEH provide requesters with an estimate amount of fees, including a breakdown of fees for search, review and/or duplication. While we appreciate the commenter's suggestion, we have decided to keep the proposed language as it follows best practice language used in other agency FOIA regulations. The commenter also suggested that NEH state it would not charge a requester the operator/programmer salary while a computer is running a query or automatic search in response to a request. In order to clarify this section we have modified section 1171.11(c)(1)(ii) in part. The commenter further suggested that NEH define “fee waiver” and recommended striking the word “attenuated” from section 1171.11(f)(2)(i) in the “interest of plain language.” After considering the suggestion, we have decided to retain the proposed language. The commenter applauded NEH for including a provision that non-commercial FOIA requesters are entitled to two hours of search time and 100 pages of duplication free of charge in 1171.11(d)(1). In light of this section, the commenter suggested revising section 1171.11(g)(2) for consistency. We agree and have modified this section accordingly.

The commenter recommended that NEH release all documents without any charge or at reduced charge if the information is in the public interest. NEH regularly releases information that would likely be of public interest on its Web site and notes that the majority of its FOIA requests come from educational institutions that are not charged for the information received. NEH will continue to assess what information it may proactively release while complying with FOIA.

Finally, the commenter suggested that the rule include a section on the preservation of records and records management. We agree and have added a new section.

The second commenter was a public interest research center. The comments offered improvements to the rule. Some of the commenter's suggestions mirrored other comments, many of which were accepted.

The commenter had various suggestions regarding document disclosure. The commenter suggested that NEH post all released records online and that it consider joining the multi-agency FOIAonline portal. While NEH appreciates the suggestion, posting all released records would be impractical and a heavy administrative burden for the small team that administers the NEH FOIA program. Additionally, NEH routinely proactively releases documents that are likely to have a significant public interest, and posts these documents in its electronic FOIA Library. Regarding the portal, NEH may assess joining in the future. The commenter further suggested that the rule explicitly state that NEH will proactively identify records of public interest, post these records online and establish categories of records that can be disclosed regularly and posted online. We agree and have modified section 1171.4(c) in part. The commenter also suggested that NEH publish indexes of disclosed records online. NEH appreciates the comment but has previously determined that publication and distribution of these indexes is impracticable, and in any event NEH routinely releases these indexes under FOIA upon request. The commenter also suggested, in the case of FOIA referrals, the rule provide the FOIA contact at the receiving agency. We agree and have modified section 1171.6(d).

The commenter had a number of suggestions regarding notifying requesters of dispute resolution services. The commenter suggested that all acknowledgment letters include the FOIA Public Liaison's contact information and that the rule include a new “Dispute Resolution” section to provide instructions on how to access the Public Liaison. Although we appreciate both comments, we believe that by posting the Public Liaison's contact information on the NEH's Web site and in its annual FOIA documents the public is sufficiently informed about how to contact this individual.

The commenter also had comments regarding the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). Specifically, the commenter suggested that (1) all NEH decision and appeal letters include information on the role of OGIS and its contact information (2) the rule include a new “Dispute Resolution” section that describes how requesters may access OGIS services, and (3) the NEH Web site include information on OGIS. With respect to the first suggestion, while we agree that appeal letters would be improved by providing information on OGIS, we do not believe this information is appropriate in decision letters. Regarding the second suggestion, we do not believe it is necessary to create a new “Dispute Resolution” section of the rule, particularly now that the rule will include the contact information for OGIS. Regarding the third suggestion, we agree and will add information on OGIS to the NEH FOIA Web site.

The commenter also suggested revising the rule to allow requesters to submit administrative appeals by email and fax. We agree and have revised section 1171.10(a). The commenter further suggested allowing a minimum of sixty days for administrative appeal submissions. We agree more time could be helpful and have increased the timeframe to thirty days. The commenter also recommended increasing the threshold of the minimum fee charge. We agree and have increased the threshold from $14 to $25. Finally, the commenter suggested that section 1171.11 include information on possible fee waivers if NEH fails to comply with statutory time limits. We agree and have added new language to this section.

The third commenter was a private citizen and provided comments to improve the rule. First, the commenter thought section 1171.7(d)(2) was generally duplicative of section 1171.11(k). Although we appreciate the commenter's perspective, NEH believes both sections are useful. One section serves the purpose of informing the public that NEH may aggregate requests in certain circumstances, and the other is about fees related to aggregated requests. The commenter also suggested the regulation include information on possible fee waivers if NEH fails to comply with statutory time limits. As noted above, we agree and have added new language to 1171.11(d). Finally, the commenter believed that portions of section 1171.11(c)(1)(ii) reflected an outdated and antiquated practice. We agree and have modified this section.

NEH will comply with all applicable laws in its FOIA administration, including Presidential memoranda and Attorney General guidance. We thank all commenters for their thoughtful input.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.

The NEH Chairman, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the FOIA, NEH may recover only the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records that agencies process for requesters. NEH's fee schedules for such costs are consistent with OMB guidelines on FOIA fees, and provide criteria by which requesters may receive a fee waiver or reduction of fees. Furthermore, the rule will only affect persons and organizations who file FOIA requests with NEH, which receives relatively few requests each year (generally fewer than fifty (50) per year) in comparison to other Federal departments and agencies.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, the rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804, as amended. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The NEH has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply to the rule because the rule does not contain information collection requirements that require OMB approval.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Endowment for the Humanities amends 45 CFR chapter XI, subchapter D, to add part 1171 as follows:

IMLS operates as part of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 951 et seq. ). The corresponding regulations published at 45 CFR Chapter XI, Subchapter A apply to the entire Foundation, while the regulations published at 45 CFR Chapter XI, Subchapter E apply only to the institute.

This final rule implements IMLS' FOIA regulations in Subchapter E (45 CFR part 1184), replacing the existing regulations in Subchapter A (45 CFR part 1100) with regard to IMLS. The final rule provides additional detail concerning several provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and is intended to increase understanding of IMLS' FOIA policies. IMLS is authorized to issue these regulations under 5 U.S.C. 552.

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is adopting regulations to implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. FOIA requires Federal agencies to make official documents and other records available to the public upon request, unless the material requested falls under one of several statutorily prescribed exemptions. FOIA also requires agencies to publish rules stating the time, place, fees, and procedures to apply in making such records available. Further, Section 1803 of the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986 requires each agency to establish a system for recovering costs associated with responding to requests for information under FOIA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidelines that set standard government-wide definitions for assessing and collecting FOIA fees (OMB Fee Guidelines). These regulations describe the ways in which records may be requested by the public, and explain how IMLS will respond to such requests and assess fees in connection with the agency's response.

The regulations also incorporate the policies expressed in the President's January 21, 2009, Executive Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act, and the Attorney General's March 19, 2009, Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. These policies, however, do not create any legally enforceable rights.

By implementing the provisions of the January 21, 2009, Executive Memorandum and Attorney General Holder's March 19, 2009, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, these regulations will improve IMLS's FOIA-related service and performance, thereby strengthening the agency's compliance with the law. On April 16, 2013, IMLS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 22501) and requested public comments on the proposed rule.

The comment period ended on May 16, 2013, and IMLS received comments from one commenter. This section of the preamble discusses issues raised in the comments.

The commenter suggested that IMLS revise the regulations to more fully embrace the use of online disclosure for public information under FOIA, including recommendations to: (1) Adopt a policy to establish categories of records that can be disclosed regularly and posted on the IMLS Web site; (2) to proactively identify and disclose additional records of interest to the public; (3) to publish all records released in response to FOIA requests; and (4) to publish online indexes of information made available under FOIA. IMLS has carefully considered these suggestions, and adopts the recommendations to adopt a policy to establish categories of records that can be disclosed regularly and to proactively identify and disclose additional records of interest to the public. IMLS is committed to continuing to find new ways of proactively disclosing records to the public, the agency declines to adopt the other recommendations into its regulations, because it believes the final rule provides the agency with the necessary flexibility to adopt innovative ways of providing useful information.

The commenter suggested that IMLS revise the regulations to adopt a policy to acknowledge requests as soon as practicable, and to provide information about the agency's FOIA Public Liaison. IMLS agrees and adopts these recommendations in the final rule.

The commenter suggested that IMLS maintain a database of fee waivers granted by the agency to consult for future waiver requests, and revise the regulations to provide that it will not charge a fee if the total fee is $50 or less. IMLS has carefully considered these suggestions, but declines to adopt them. IMLS declines to adopt the first suggestion into its regulations, because the agency believes the final rule ensures consistent agency practice with regard to fee waivers. With regard to the second suggestion, both the proposed and final rule reflect IMLS's policy decision to not charge a fee if the total fee is $25 or less.

The commenter suggested that IMLS improve communication with FOIA requesters by: (1) Adopting a policy that the agency will contact the requester to seek clarification if the agency is unclear as to the scope of the request; (2) providing an estimated time to complete the request and opportunities to reformulate; (3) informing requesters of status updates; (4) communicating with requesters by email where appropriate; (5) using plain language in all communications with requesters; and (6) notifying requesters when requests are referred. After careful consideration of these suggestions, IMLS has revised the final rule to clarify that IMLS will provide requesters with a tracking number and as appropriate, a brief description of the request, and relevant IMLS contact information. The final rule also has been revised to reflect that IMLS will communicate with requesters to clarify the scope of the request in the event of uncertainty and that the agency will notify requesters when a request is referred to another agency. IMLS notes that the final rule allows for the agency to communicate, where appropriate, with requesters by email, and that the agency is governed by the Plain Writing Act of 2010, which directs agencies to use plain language when communicating.

The commenter suggested that the agency revise the rule to reflect a presumption of openness. IMLS agrees and the final rule has been revised to adopt this suggestion.

The commenter suggested that IMLS revise the proposed rule to: (1) Clarify that requesters may submit administrative appeals electronically; (2) notify requesters of dispute resolution services in appeal determinations; and (3) provide a minimum of 60 days for requesters to submit administrative appeals.

IMLS has carefully considered these suggestions, and adopts the recommendations that the rule be revised to: (1) Clarify that requesters may submit appeals electronically; and (2) notify requesters of dispute resolution services in appeal determinations. IMLS declines to adopt the recommendation to extend the period of time available for a requester to submit an appeal to 60 days. The agency believes the final rule, which provides the requester with 30 days to file an administrative appeal, allows for sufficient time for a requester to gather all the facts relevant to the request and prepare any arguments they may wish to make in their appeal.

The commenter suggested that IMLS revise the proposed rule to add a new subsection describing how requesters can resolve disputes with regard to their request. IMLS agrees and the final rule has been revised to adopt this suggestion.

The National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) reviewed IMLS's proposed regulations and made recommendations, which IMLS took into account in drafting this final rule.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

IMLS has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply because these regulations do not contain any information collection requirements subject to approval by OMB.

These regulations meet the applicable standards set forth in Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

These regulations will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, IMLS has determined that these regulations do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

IMLS, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed these regulations and certifies that they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they pertain to administrative matters affecting the agency.

These regulations will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.

These regulations are not major regulations as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. They will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

IMLS has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. This rule does not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. This rule will not have a significant effect on the nation's energy supply, distribution, or use.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically organized; (b) use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) use clear language rather than jargon; (d) be divided into short sections and sentences; and (e) use lists and tables wherever possible.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, IMLS amends 45 CFR chapter XI, subchapter E to add part 1184 as follows:

This rule published January 17, 2014, erroneously listed the subsections of two rules that were approved by OMB: on pages 3133 (column 2, line 17; column 3, lines 38-39) and 3134 (column 1, line 26; column 1, line 32), the document listed rules “§§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d),” when it should have listed merely “§§ 1.946, 27.10.”

In the Federal Register of January 17, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-01055:

1. On page 3133, in the second column, on line 17, correct “§§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d)” to read: “§§ 1.946, 27.10”.

2. On page 3133, in the third column, on lines 38-39, correct “§§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d)” to read: “§§ 1.946, 27.10”.

3. On page 3134, in the first column, on line 26, correct “§§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d)” to read: “§§ 1.946, 27.10”.

4. On page 3134, in the first column, on line 32, correct “§§ 1.946(d), 27.10(d)” to read: “§§ 1.946, 27.10”.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

On April 27, 2000, NMFS implemented the final rule (65 FR 16336, March 28, 2000) that divided the Florida west coast subzone of the Gulf of Mexico eastern zone into northern and southern subzones, and established their separate quotas. The 2013 to 2014 fishing year quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector in the southern Florida west coast subzone is 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)( 1 )).

In accordance with 50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(ii)(B)( 2 ), from the date that 75 percent of the southern Florida west coast subzone's hook-and-line gear quota has been harvested until a closure of the subzone's commercial sector of the hook-and-line component has been effected or the fishing year ends, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day.

NMFS has projected that 75 percent of the hook-and-line gear quota for Gulf group king mackerel from the southern Florida west coast subzone will be harvested by February 16, 2014. Accordingly, a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit applies to vessels in the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern Florida west coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, February 16, 2014. The 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit will remain in effect until the component closes or until the end of the current fishing year (June 30, 2014), whichever occurs first.

From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone encompasses an area of the EEZ south of a line extending due west of the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east of the Monroe/Dade County, FL, boundary on the Florida east coast, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties, FL. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is reduced to the EEZ off Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe County becomes part of the Atlantic migratory group area.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf king mackerel resource and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(iii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this trip limit reduction for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.

Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment could result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota. Immediate implementation of this action is needed to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 6,959 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013) and inseason adjustment (79 FR 601, January 6, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 6,949 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 11, 2014.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The A season allowance of the 2014 Atka mackerel TAC, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 428 metric tons by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (78 FR 13813, March 1, 2013), and as modified by inseason adjustments (79 FR 758, January 7, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of the Atka mackerel fishery in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 11, 2014. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.